Originally posted by NaplesXHaving said that, Some of what you say does give the appearance of impropriety. Which is different from corruption. However, if all of that is true and like you seem to be implying, the president or any in his admin gained personally from this then you might have a point. You have a lot to prove. There need to be a direct link. I don't see one.

You'd have to be a total idiot to get caught in direct bribery, when indirect is not much harder to do but almost impossible to show in an airtight way. Legal proof is one thing, but voters, investors, citizens don't need 100% proof to act. They can act when they reach some level of confidence, like 90%, that there is foul play.

Do you think any amount of corruption is okay as long as it's not direct personal gain but redirected in a few steps? Politician favors company, company favors party, party favors politician?

Originally posted by GonYou'd have to be a total idiot to get caught in direct bribery, when indirect is not much harder to do but almost impossible to show in an airtight way. Legal proof is one thing, but voters, investors, citizens don't need 100% proof to act. They can act when they reach some level of confidence, like 90%, that there is foul play.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by GonDo you think any amount of corruption is okay as long as it's not direct personal gain but redirected in a few steps? Politician favors company, company favors party, party favors politician?

Corruption is not OK. Favor is not necessarily corruption though. Corruption involves intent.

Originally posted by NaplesXNot in regard to terrorism. But that line has been taken in recent past years and upheld by our courts. Of course, the US took more casualties in one attack then in its entire history. So that plays into the equation. The patriot act was a severe reaction to severe attack on its homeland. You will see it change and morph over time.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot. The US is at war right now. That changes things a bit.

If law told you to jump off a cliff and the courts upheld it, would you be any more inclined to do so? Again you're leaning on status quo like it's a reason in itself.

Patriot Act and the other aggressions on freedoms after 9/11 are the result of calculated fearmongering, not a reasonable reaction by any standard. About 3000 people in the US died that day in a criminal attack. The offenders were criminals, not soldiers. Crime, not war. 16000 people were killed the same year, all just plain old crime other than terrorism (source: FBI statistics).

Even discounting that the 3000 people died on one year only, and regular homicides go on year after year, why not put five times the cash that has been poured into the so-called 'war on terrorism' into regular old policework, paying police better, and hiring more of them? It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that more police presence and more solved cases means less crime, all positive progress, without need to tamper with people's rights, and it would curtail the potential living space for terrorism as well. A small part of that cash would be enough to enable Coast Guard and Border Guard close down U.S. borders tight from illegal entry and even give a good chance of intercepting any WMD someone might be trying to get into the U.S.

If Patriot Act and co. were really justified measures, similar laws would have been introduced long ago to combat crime. They are not neutral tools one can use to defend freedom, they are an attack on that very freedom.

You don't care about other countries and that is apparent, but also comparing things to abroad the kneejerk reaction of the U.S. has been out of proportion. Many countries have been able to increase their personal freedom under grave threats to their very existence, in fact the U.S. was that way earlier as well. However, it has not been under such a threat for over a century. And now it's 'understandable' to start cutting into basic rights of people?

Originally posted by NaplesXNot in regard to terrorism. But that line has been taken in recent past years and upheld by our courts. Of course, the US took more casualties in one attack then in its entire history. So that plays into the equation. The patriot act was a severe reaction to severe attack on its homeland. You will see it change and morph over time.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot. The US is at war right now. That changes things a bit.

Yes except that definition can ( and has been ) used to deal with other things unrelated. War shouldn't change that and under that definition of war the " WOT " could go on forever. Meaning things could stay changed forever. I think if most people really weighed the consequences of that they wouldn't like it. And wouldn't go for it.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Naples' differentiation of US "patting on the back" and French doing whatever he thinks they're doing is clear and unadulterated hypocrisy.

Corruption is corruption. At all levels. And I see no evidence that France or Germany are more "corrupt" than the US. Show me some, Napes. I've shown you one type of corruption regarding Iraq that the US has been involved in (inflated no-bid contracts and lack of accountability), and it's undeniable, numbers in the billions of dollars (that's more than a "pat on the back", son), and supports your Webster definition of corruption 100%.

Originally posted by tontonNaples' differentiation of US "patting on the back" and French doing whatever he thinks they're doing is clear and unadulterated hypocrisy.

Corruption is corruption. At all levels. And I see no evidence that France or Germany are more "corrupt" than the US. Show me some, Napes. I've shown you one type of corruption regarding Iraq that the US has been involved in (inflated no-bid contracts and lack of accountability), and it's undeniable, numbers in the billions of dollars (that's more than a "pat on the back", son), and supports your Webster definition of corruption 100%.

You're overlooking some important words in the dictionary definition. And hey, thats cool. You are free to skip words and misunderstand and misinterpret anything you want.

Supporting a UN sanctioned dictator while his people starved and were murdered in the thousands. Selling him banned weapons and materials and getting kickbacks for selling him spoiled food and medicine and unusable equipment for hospitals. Receiving Iraqi oil vouchers worth millions to look the other way.

Now let me get this straight... You think that Haliburton (sp?) getting favored contractor status rises up to the level of corruption that the UN and SH set the new bar for?

Hey, it's cool. You are entitled to have any opinion you want. You are allowed to hold Iraqi innocent lives in such low esteem just so you can justify hateing the US. That's called freedom.

Originally posted by NaplesXSupporting a UN sanctioned dictator while his people starved and were murdered in the thousands. Selling him banned weapons and materials and getting kickbacks for selling him spoiled food and medicine and unusable equipment for hospitals. Receiving Iraqi oil vouchers worth millions to look the other way.

Now let me get this straight... You think that Haliburton (sp?) getting favored contractor status rises up to the level of corruption that the UN and SH set the new bar for?

Hey, it's cool. You are entitled to have any opinion you want. You are allowed to hold Iraqi innocent lives in such low esteem just so you can justify hateing the US. That's called freedom.

Supporting a UN sanctioned dictator while his people starved and were murdered in the thousands. Selling him banned weapons and materials and getting kickbacks for selling him spoiled food and medicine and unusable equipment for hospitals. Receiving Iraqi oil vouchers worth millions to look the other way.

Who starved the Iraqi people ? : The UN with US approval. US did everything to maintain the strong embargo with Iraq. Perhaps without the embargo, SH should have made some WOMD, but the truth is that the starvation is related to the embargo.

Who selled banned weapons : nearly no ones. Some bunkers where made by German corp without the autorisation of the german governement. But Iraq did not gained weapons. In fact SH's army was a joke and a pity.

Did germany and France supported Iraq : NO. They where against the war, and they prefered SH more than an islamist dictatorship. Be proud Naples, because it's what you will get now. An another islamist dictatorship, and more terrorist around the world. That's the mess that Bush's admin have done, and I am very angry about this.

Edited my message. I had an emergency and I did not have the time to reread me.

Originally posted by PowerdocWho starved the Iraqi people ? : The UN with US approval. US did everything to maintain the strong embargo with Iraq. Perhaps without the embargo, SH should have made some WOMD, but the truth is that the starvation is related to the embargo.

Who selled banned weapons : nearly no ones. Some bunkers where made by German corp without the autorisation of the german governement. But Iraq did not gained weapons. In fact SH's army was a joke and a pity.

Did germany and SH supported Iras : NO. They where againt the war, and they prefered SH more than a islamist dictatorship. Be proud Naples, because it's what you will get now. An another islamist dictatorship, and more terrorist around the world. That's the mess that Bush's admin have done, and I am very angry about this.

Well, I am sure that you realize I have nothing to do with that situation. But feel free to take out your anger on me.

You are entitled to hold the position that you have, however flawed it may or may not be. Freedom affords you that.

I will tell you this, many world leaders gambled many lives just so that they could obtain money. In the months and years needed to clear the UNOFF mess up, look back on your current position and remember what I said. Hopefully like most of us you will have learned something from it all.

Originally posted by NaplesXWell, I am sure that you realize I have nothing to do with that situation. But feel free to take out your anger on me.

You are entitled to hold the position that you have, however flawed it may or may not be. Freedom affords you that.

I will tell you this, many world leaders gambled many lives just so that they could obtain money. In the months and years needed to clear the UNOFF mess up, look back on your current position and remember what I said. Hopefully like most of us you will have learned something from it all.

Please....make.....it.....stop......

This is just a joke now isn't it ? Not even the pretense of the smallest scintilla of lip-service to thought, consideration or analysis, let alone (God help us) any form of debate.

This has got to be nearing the end of its shelf life.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Originally posted by NaplesXWell, I am sure that you realize I have nothing to do with that situation. But feel free to take out your anger on me.

You are entitled to hold the position that you have, however flawed it may or may not be. Freedom affords you that.

I will tell you this, many world leaders gambled many lives just so that they could obtain money. In the months and years needed to clear the UNOFF mess up, look back on your current position and remember what I said. Hopefully like most of us you will have learned something from it all.

That's right Nappy. Nothing really has been accomplished in Iraq for the people there. In 5 years freedom will mean little there and another jerk will be in power. Unless of course we're still there ( ).

You're shooting blanks and no one's buying.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by NaplesXWell, I am sure that you realize I have nothing to do with that situation. But feel free to take out your anger on me.

I do realize that you have nothing to do with that situation. I spoke of Bush admin, and according to my last infos you are not belonging to this admin.
I do not belong to the french governement either ...

Now, what made me angry, it the recurrent assertion, that France and Germany supported SH. France and Germany and some others countries where agains the dictator, but they did not supported the Iraq war.
France did made a number of errors with SH in the past, one of them was the nuclear plant thing. Others countries where also screwed by SH, and it included USA. France has some interest in oil in this countrie, but so did USA and some others big oil corporates. When kowait invaded Koweit, France belonged to the coalition and send the third army in size after the Giant US one, and the big british one (french army was 15 000 soldiers). The first Gulf war was approved by 90 % of the population in France : I do not think that it was a strong proof of SH support.
Most of the people of France and Germany, would have been happy to see the head of Saddam on a pike.

Resuming my opinion that I am against the war in Iraq, because I supported SH is simply insulting, and is insulting every people who share this opinion around the world. I and many people just thaught that in this case the medecine ( a war) was worse than the illness.
For the world sake, I hope sincerely that I am wrong, and a greater good will result of the Iraq war. But until now, I am not convinced.

Originally posted by PowerdocI do realize that you have nothing to do with that situation. I spoke of Bush admin, and according to my last infos you are not belonging to this admin.
I do not belong to the french governement either ...

Now, what made me angry, it the recurrent assertion, that France and Germany supported SH. France and Germany and some others countries where agains the dictator, but they did not supported the Iraq war.
France did made a number of errors with SH in the past, one of them was the nuclear plant thing. Others countries where also screwed by SH, and it included USA. France has some interest in oil in this countrie, but so did USA and some others big oil corporates. When kowait invaded Koweit, France belonged to the coalition and send the third army in size after the Giant US one, and the big british one (french army was 15 000 soldiers). The first Gulf war was approved by 90 % of the population in France : I do not think that it was a strong proof of SH support.
Most of the people of France and Germany, would have been happy to see the head of Saddam on a pike.

Resuming my opinion that I am against the war in Iraq, because I supported SH is simply insulting, and is insulting every people who share this opinion around the world. I and many people just thaught that in this case the medecine ( a war) was worse than the illness.
For the world sake, I hope sincerely that I am wrong, and a greater good will result of the Iraq war. But until now, I am not convinced.

France, and it's leadership were closely involved with the corruption with the UN and Iraq. Of course your hatred of this admin, tells you it's OK to bilk millions of dollars from this country's taxpayers. That was the sickness - the US' so-called friends and allies helping a two bit dictator, to the tune of 22 billion dollars and growing, despite the fact that dictator was killing his own people by the 100's of thousands.

Why did they do that?

We can only guess, but it could be just for the money and the opportunity to rage against the US. The french have long had animosity toward the US, despite the fact the US was their savior at one time, or should I say "because of?

Like I said, I hope you follow the UNOFF revelation as they come out, It is very eye opening, wether you approve of this US admin or not.

Originally posted by NaplesXFrance, and it's leadership were closely involved with the corruption with the UN and Iraq. Of course your hatred of this admin, tells you it's OK to bilk millions of dollars from this country's taxpayers. That was the sickness - the US' so-called friends and allies helping a two bit dictator, to the tune of 22 billion dollars and growing, despite the fact that dictator was killing his own people by the 100's of thousands.

Why did they do that?

We can only guess, but it could be just for the money and the opportunity to rage against the US. The french have long had animosity toward the US, despite the fact the US was their savior at one time, or should I say "because of?

Like I said, I hope you follow the UNOFF revelation as they come out, It is very eye opening, wether you approve of this US admin or not.

Nothing of this ( if even half true ) changes the fact that there must be corruption connected with our president and the reason this war happened in the first place. All the pointing fingers in the world won't change that Nappy.

So when you start talking about corruption think of WOMD or lack thereof.

When you think of bilking dollars out of the tax payers : Just how much has this unnecessary war cost to date?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by NaplesXFrance, and it's leadership were closely involved with the corruption with the UN and Iraq. Of course your hatred of this admin, tells you it's OK to bilk millions of dollars from this country's taxpayers. That was the sickness - the US' so-called friends and allies helping a two bit dictator, to the tune of 22 billion dollars and growing, despite the fact that dictator was killing his own people by the 100's of thousands.

Have you something to back up this claim ?. I don't think so. I am waiting your proofs of corruption.

My hate ( a too strong word that is, but it's your own words) of your admin is coming from the Iraqi war. If you do some search on AI's archives you will see that I supported the first afghanistan war. Now I feeled screwed up, that Bush lied and build this WOMD thing. US made a preemptive war for bad reasons.

France is not perfect, and in quest of his own interests like many others countries, but you have to understand something about the 22 billions things. The 22 billions thing is the debt of Iraq to France. This debt was the result of previous loan made by France before the first gulf war. The only way to give back this money, was the UN program oil against food, and guess what the biggest player of this program was US (normal if we consider US size, anormal if we follow your moral stance).

Quote:

Why did they do that?

We can only guess, but it could be just for the money and the opportunity to rage against the US. The french have long had animosity toward the US, despite the fact the US was their savior at one time, or should I say "because of?

They did that, because all military experts did not buyed the WOMD thing, France has a lot of spies in these part of the world, unlike US at the time who played the card of technological intelligence. France did not wanted to be involved in a bad war. It was the first time in the history of France and US relationships that it happens.

There isn't some special animosity toward US, some fascination and lack of comprehension sometimes, but definitively not animosity.

You are very kind to threw in our face, the Savior whenever an european contradict you. I give a lot of Credit to US to have save US twice in the past, at the contrary of France who only helped one time (remember Lafayette). But I don't think that France have a special debt to USA, and that she is obliged to follow blindly her.
I should even say that USA helped US twice in order to save her own interests, but sometimes I am a simple being, and I will not follow that line. I will simply say that I am grateful. But being grateful, does not mean that I have lost my identity.

Quote:

Like I said, I hope you follow the UNOFF revelation as they come out, It is very eye opening, wether you approve of this US admin or not.

I truly hope, that wether you love Bush Admin, or not you will follow the events as they came out. But I have a doubt, you are still denying that WOMD did not existed (Blair admitted publicaly that there where no WOMD).

Originally posted by NaplesXFrance, and it's leadership were closely involved with the corruption with the UN and Iraq.

Lie #1 - Please show some evidence of this or admit this is a lie.

Quote:

Of course your hatred of this admin, tells you it's OK to bilk millions of dollars from this country's taxpayers.

Lie #2 - Please show some evidence of this or admit this is a lie.

Disgusting Hypocrisy #1 - I've pointed out that the Bush administration has bilked BILLIONS of dollars from the US taxpayers, and has killed as many Iraqi civilians in the last year as Saddam likely did in the five years prior.

Quote:

That was the sickness - the US' so-called friends and allies helping a two bit dictator, to the tune of 22 billion dollars and growing, despite the fact that dictator was killing his own people by the 100's of thousands.

"Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery."

Now WHO THE FUCK IS KILLING 100,000 Iraqis? Try George Bush.

Quote:

Why did [the Bush Administration] do that?

We can only guess, but it could be just for the money and the opportunity to rage against [the Muslim Middle East]. The [American Right] have long had animosity toward the [Muslim Middle East], despite the fact the [Muslim Middle East] was their [biggest trading partner] at one time, or should I say "because of?

I fixed it for you.

By the way, that's disgusting hypocrisy #2 in its original form.

Quote:

Like I said, I hope you follow the UNOFF revelation as they come out, It is very eye opening, wether you approve of this US admin or not.

The truth will out about the Bush Administration and the war. Bush will not get away with this like Reagan did.

"France's government tightly controls its aerospace and defense firms, however, so it would be difficult to believe that the illegal transfers of equipment parts took place without the knowledge of at least some government officials.

Iraq's Mirage F-1 fighter jets were made by France's Dassault Aviation. Its Gazelle attack helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which became part of a consortium of European defense companies."

"A French company, CIS Paris, helped broker the sale of 20 tons of HTPB, a controlled export that was shipped from China to the Syrian port of Tartus. The chemical solution was sent by truck from Syria into Iraq, to a missile-manufacturing plant. The Iraqi company that purchased the shipment was in charge of making solid fuel for long-range missiles."

"An initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France."

"an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier."

"In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces and therefore justice."

"In 1992, according to Iraqi intelligence documents included in the report, Abdel-Razek Al Hashimi, the Iraqi ambassador to France, handed $1 million for the ruling Socialist party to Pierre Joxe, the defence minister.

Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, awarded several French "individuals" substantial oil vouchers in return for using their influence to help lift sanctions.

Most vouchers could be exchanged for cash from oil middlemen in Baghdad. "Saddam sought favourable relations with France because France was influential in the Security Council," the report said."

"An Iraqi man checks a bag containing human remains Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddams regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Baath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shiite save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shiite uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as After today no more Shiites the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared."

Naples X. I have read your article from the Washington time. It's an amazing anti-french rant.
The Washington time is obvioulsy a french hater. French have replied that it's false, the washington time say it's denial. The Washington time did not show any proof just assertions.
If you go this way, I can show you articles coming from ultra left french US hater newpapers. Unfortunately I did not read them and I refuse to do it .

Not Wash Post. Washington Times. The moonie paper that makes stuff up (like the fake kerry quotes) and was created by reverend moon to promote his cult, as explicitly stated by moon himself.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, is a real newspaper worth reading.

Bill Gertz is the washington times' most famous 'reporter.' He also reported the russians moving iraq arms story that the pentagon (including rumsfeld personally) disavowed.

Google gave me some interesting headlines from his other big stories from the past:

Quote:

Iraq seeks steel for nukes, July 26, 2002

Iraqi germ plant active, August 14, 2002

Iraq suspected of sponsoring terrorist attacks, September 21 2001 (Osama bin Laden was in contact with Iraqi government agents from his base in Afghanistan in the days leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks...)

Originally posted by giantNot Wash Post. Washington Times. The moonie paper that makes stuff up (like the fake kerry quotes) and was created by reverend moon to promote his cult, as explicitly stated by moon himself.

Originally posted by giantNot Wash Post. Washington Times. The moonie paper that makes stuff up (like the fake kerry quotes) and was created by reverend moon to promote his cult, as explicitly stated by moon himself.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, is a real newspaper worth reading.

Bill Gertz is the washington times' most famous 'reporter.' He also reported the russians moving iraq arms story that the pentagon (including rumsfeld personally) disavowed.

Google gave me some interesting headlines from his other big stories from the past:

All of which turned out to be false.

He is also the main promoter of the iraq whole wmd -> syria bit.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion. I forget the first rule of forum discussions : never post while angry.

Naples is a product of a growing phenomena that portends a United States even more divided and unreachable by simple fact that it is now.

Having bought into the "liberal media" myth wholeheartedly, he clearly gets all or most of his information from explicitly right wing sources. These entities privilege a larger narrative-- the infallibility of the US, the inherent righteousness of our foreign adventures, the quasi-traitorous stance of "liberals", the ennobling aura of heartland values, the idea of the "opportunity economy", where hard work always trumps injustice, among others-- over any pretense of journalism.

In this, they are right in sync with the Bush admin, who never met an inconvenient they didn't dismiss as nonexistent, irrelevant, or the work of sinister liberal boogeymen.

I think his sources go a long way towards explaining the surreal vibe that attends a lot of back and forth with Naples-- he is literally living in a different world. A world where people he believes are telling the truth have concocted some face saving story about WOMD going to Syria. Where it is only a matter of time before Iraq bursts forth as a vibrant beacon of freedom in the middle east, and all the nay sayers are silenced. Where Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, and the WOT logically goes through Baghdad.

Now, out in the larger world of verifiable facts, there is no evidence, and in fact quite a bit of evidence contrary to, these ideas. But if you start with the stance that the people who know this are really the ones with the agenda-- that they "hate America" and want to "destroy Bush", then you never have to acknowledge any inconvenient information that might mitigate against your world view. And if you can summon up sources of information that confirm your worst suspicions (and which the internets make unprecedented ease of), well then, conservatism means never having to say your sorry.

Now Naples is just a guy, as am I. My fear though, is that we are entering an unprecedented era of "the truth is whatever I want to hear" in America.

Because Naples, and his uncounted legions of like minded wingers, represent the accelerating erosion of enlightenment values. They explicitly reject the idea that there such a thing as real and fictional evidence, or, if you prefer, better and worse. They reject the idea that the world is knowable in some objective sense. They make a mockery of the idea that theories of causality may be tested against the record and found wanting, or not.

Instead, they lay down a rhetorical thicket that crudely resembles argumentation, but sans any appeal to knowable truths. Like the Bush administration, assertions of "reality" merely serve to prop up the larger edifice of "the world how we think it should be".

In short, faith based.

And as more and more of what passes for public discourse is buried under these appeals to emotional posturing masquerading as actual logic, how are we to proceed?

If we can't even talk about, say, Social Security in terms of the actual dollars and cents, when the person holding up the ledger sheet is casually dismissed as a "partisan" bent on "thwarting the president" and nobody even thinks to check the figures--when, in fact, most people are under the impression that "the figures" are meaningless, or too hard to figure out, or just a partisan tool, and the real story is some slogan about the "ownership economy" because saying it feels good-- how the hell can we expect to improve the lives of ourselves and our children?

Reality-- it's a liberal conspiracy.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Naples is a product of a growing phenomena that portends a United States even more divided and unreachable by simple fact that it is now.

Having bought into the "liberal media" myth wholeheartedly, he clearly gets all or most of his information from explicitly right wing sources. These entities privilege a larger narrative-- the infallibility of the US, the inherent righteousness of our foreign adventures, the quasi-traitorous stance of "liberals", the ennobling aura of heartland values, the idea of the "opportunity economy", where hard work always trumps injustice, among others-- over any pretense of journalism.

In this, they are right in sync with the Bush admin, who never met an inconvenient they didn't dismiss as nonexistent, irrelevant, or the work of sinister liberal boogeymen.

I think his sources go a long way towards explaining the surreal vibe that attends a lot of back and forth with Naples-- he is literally living in a different world. A world where people he believes are telling the truth have concocted some face saving story about WOMD going to Syria. Where it is only a matter of time before Iraq bursts forth as a vibrant beacon of freedom in the middle east, and all the nay sayers are silenced. Where Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, and the WOT logically goes through Baghdad.

Now, out in the larger world of verifiable facts, there is no evidence, and in fact quite a bit of evidence contrary to, these ideas. But if you start with the stance that the people who know this are really the ones with the agenda-- that they "hate America" and want to "destroy Bush", then you never have to acknowledge any inconvenient information that might mitigate against your world view. And if you can summon up sources of information that confirm your worst suspicions (and which the internets make unprecedented ease of), well then, conservatism means never having to say your sorry.

Now Naples is just a guy, as am I. My fear though, is that we are entering an unprecedented era of "the truth is whatever I want to hear" in America.

Because Naples, and his uncounted legions of like minded wingers, represent the accelerating erosion of enlightenment values. They explicitly reject the idea that there such a thing as real and fictional evidence, or, if you prefer, better and worse. They reject the idea that the world is knowable in some objective sense. They make a mockery of the idea that theories of causality may be tested against the record and found wanting, or not.

Instead, they lay down a rhetorical thicket that crudely resembles argumentation, but sans any appeal to knowable truths. Like the Bush administration, assertions of "reality" merely serve to prop up the larger edifice of "the world how we think it should be".

In short, faith based.

And as more and more of what passes for public discourse is buried under these appeals to emotional posturing masquerading as actual logic, how are we to proceed?

If we can't even talk about, say, Social Security in terms of the actual dollars and cents, when the person holding up the ledger sheet is casually dismissed as a "partisan" bent on "thwarting the president" and nobody even thinks to check the figures--when, in fact, most people are under the impression that "the figures" are meaningless, or too hard to figure out, or just a partisan tool, and the real story is some slogan about the "ownership economy" because saying it feels good-- how the hell can we expect to improve the lives of ourselves and our children?

Reality-- it's a liberal conspiracy.

Everything that you just said can be said about you in the opposite direction.

The real problem is that each side uses what they disagree about as a starting point rather than deciding what they agree upon and then working from there.

When you look for the differences it make the divide appear so much greater than when you look for similarities.

What I believe, is that the Washington time is more interested in inside politic than foreign politic.
The goal of the Washington time was to reelect Bush. They suceed. The Washington time do not give an rat ass about France, Germany or any others countries.
The washington time have to paint an horrible portrait of France, because France was against this war, read against Bush foreign politic. For the Washington post, the only possible explanation was that France was corrupted.

Perhaps some french people are corrupted with Iraq, corruption happen in France, it's not a secret. But I have some problems to understand why a countrie who fight against Saddam during the first gulf war, wants to save Saddam's ass later.
Why a governement will want to save the ass of someone who is pictured like a tyrant and bloody dictator in France ?
I don't find any logic here.
There was some oil contracts waiting, but without changes in Iraq leadership, there was no way to make them.

Now, speaking of US, I don't see, why US invaded or liberated Iraq ? Sure there is some juicy contracts, but when you compare this contracts at the incredible amount of money invested or vasted in this war, I have some doubts.

If you consider that I am a Bush hater, why did I supported the Afghanistan war ? Considering that I am a Bush hater, it should have been the contrary.

Originally posted by PowerdocPerhaps some french people are corrupted with Iraq, corruption happen in France, it's not a secret. But I have some problems to understand why a countrie who fight against Saddam during the first gulf war, wants to save Saddam's ass later.
Why a governement will want to save the ass of someone who is pictured like a tyrant and bloody dictator in France ?
I don't find any logic here.
There was some oil contracts waiting, but without changes in Iraq leadership, there was no way to make them.

Bingo.

No one is saying there was no corruption. But according to naples' belief that corruption was the reason for french opposition to the war, 80%+ of france's population was recieving oil vouchers.

It's amazing how Cheney's company has a rap sheet a mile long, with everything from bribery of gov't officials to cheating sanctions against trading with Iraq, Iran and Lybia to illegal accounting to massive overcharging, yet that's OK and instead we are supposed to spend our energy blindly condemning europe.

Originally posted by giantIt's amazing how Cheney's company has a rap sheet a mile long, with everything from bribery of gov't officials to cheating sanctions against trading with Iraq, Iran and Lybia to illegal accounting to massive overcharging, yet that's OK and instead we are supposed to spend our energy blindly condemning europe.

It's funny how you call it Cheney's company. It's even funnier how you justify one wrong by pointing out another.